Managing Upwards

Overview

Welcome to the programme Managing upwards.

Managing upwards is one of a cluster of training programmes related to the theme

"Managing myself”. The objective of this cluster of programmes is to support

managers of the EU institutions enhance their self-awareness, develop their

leadership role and style and achieve a work-life balance.

Other programmes in this cluster are:

Boost your energy

In this 1-day workshop participants assess their energy level and understand how

their "internal fitness" (physical, emotional, mental) affects their work. They will also

start to establish personal routines and practices to increase and renew their personal

energy as managers in order to work at their best during the day.

Leadership Lab

This programme comprises 3 workshops each of one day’s duration. The objective of

the programme is too enable participants to:

- reach their best in their manager role by learning and practice different activities

- deliver better results by applying different leadership styles in various management

situations

- have a stronger impact on their organisation, by understanding themselves better

and foreseeing the outcomes of their actions

The core challenges

In pursuit of their mandates and goals, most organisations structure the respective

contributions of their members according to the nature and level of their

responsibilities and power. Under one form or another, this contributes to creating

the hierarchical line.

As with many other features in the organisation, this line is meant be a valuable

resource, in particular through generating the optimal synergies for maximum

complementary added-values. And this is all the more desirable in a context where

resources are ever scarcer.

A cell within the organizational system, the relation between a manager and their

own manager is an interdependent system itself. However the interdependence does

not mean that the two elements are equal – statutory power as well as levels and

natures of responsibility, possibilities of financial engagement or stakeholder network

differ.

Consequently, working efficiently with one’s manager involves managing the

necessary interdependence towards a deliberately chosen partnership.

The requisites

Every successful partnership calls for the optimal management of four major

building-blocks, as illustrated in the figure below.

When attempting to work efficiently with their hierarchy, managers should also

concentrate on 2 complementary dimensions, which stem from what constitutes their

respective roles in the organization.

a. Everyone’s role in the organization is determined by what the organization

prescribes through a number of processes, systems and instruments. At the

A shared & agreed understanding of

what WE are jointly & respectively

accountable for

A clear & agreed definition of what

each one is in charge of (and is

NOT)

A clear & agreed definition of the

various processes which frame the way we operate together

A favourable & agreed set of

behaviours to shape the way we partner

with each other

same time each person will actually perform identical roles in different ways,

on account of their ‘Person’ factors, as the figure below illustrates.

b. As part of the ‘Person’ aspect of the role, each partner fuels the hierarchical

relation with a range of factors, all of which may not naturally lead to

cooperation and synergies – different cultural backgrounds, different

professional histories, sometimes incompatible preferences, values or traits,

possibly differing interests or personal objectives, etc.

As a consequence, working efficiently with their hierarchy also means that managers

develop themselves in a way which:

does not ignore these aspects, AND

succeeds in constructively managing them.

In particular, this requires managers to go beyond what is implicit, whether this has

been generated:

by routines,

by not devoting sufficient time to necessary clarifications and to challenging

assumptions, or

by the comfort brought about by avoiding a few uneasy confrontations.

This is why particular attention should be paid to some crucial conversations between

managers and their superiors (cf. below, Practical tips for managing typical situations

effectively).

The possible areas of focus

In attempting to optimize the partnership with their hierarchy, managers may be

constrained by a number of limiting forces. Those can have four combining (and

potentially reinforcing) origins:

The organisation itself

The manager’s hierarchy

The system the 2 ‘partners’ constitute

The manager

1. The organization itself, through:

insufficiently defined scopes of responsibilities (f.i. possible loopholes or

discrepancies in the way the formal descriptions of the respective

positions are laid out), thus creating blurred responsibility areas and

misunderstandings, or illegitimate expectations

command structures and lines which may involve managers having

more than one hierarchy

management and/or leadership cultures which may not be conducive to

partnership within the hierarchical line

instruments and practices which may play against cooperation and

synergies (f.i., the possibility de facto given to superiors to not support

their reporting managers on performance assessment/management or

promotion/mobility suggestions)

2. The manager, through:

their own relation with power and authority in general

their previous ‘histories’ with superiors

their challenges in self-positioning

where they are in the build-up of their own professional identity, in

particular from the point of view of their self-confidence

3. The manager’s hierarchy, through:

their relation with power and authority

their expectations vis-à-vis direct reports

their previous histories with direct reports

their own challenges and constraints as managers and leaders

4. The system created by both the manager and their hierarchy, through:

the track-record of cooperation between those two particular partners

the degree of intentions to cooperate, connect and synergise

the common determination (or not) to develop the practical

collaborative skills and behaviours.

However, it is their responsibility to focus as appropriate on the areas which they can

directly influence – namely themselves and the system they create with their

hierarchy, keeping aware that such an involvement is their best chance of positively

influencing the other 2 more distant origins.

Developing myself as a constructive partner

My own relation with power and authority

It is generally determined by a number of factors, among which:

how I related with authority and power figures in my early years – have I been

made comfortable with my own power and authority? Did I have to manage

very strong orders or instructions which I did not feel able to challenge or

escape? The Drivers model of Transactional Analysis can help identify such

instructions or orders as well as their potential impacts (cf.

http://changingminds.org/explanations/motivation/kahler_drivers/kahlers_driv

ers.htm)

how power and authority are managed in the culture(s) which have shaped me

along my life (cf. the Index of Hierarchical Distance in G Hofstede’s typology)

the various power and authority relations I have had to manage as part of my

previous work history. What type of superior did I have previously? Were they

rather of the empowering type? Did I have to overcome the effects of a very

directive leadership and the very limited scope of responsibility I was thus

entrusted with?

My own confidence level

The above contribute to shaping it and particularly 3 core components, which have

been set to light by W Schutz (cf. The Human Element) through 3 fundamental

questions:

How significant do I feel in the eyes of others?

How competent do I feel in the eyes of others?

How much do I feel the others like me (likeable)?

The way I answer each of these questions will have an impact on the way I behave

regarding:

Inclusion: how much I include others and want to be included by others

Control: how much I want to control others and be controlled

Openness: how open I want to be with others and want others to be to me

This will also frame expectations towards my superior. As a ‘construct’, those

expectations can bias my perception, understanding and evaluation of what kind of

manager my superior is, which in turn may create frustration, resentment, mistrust or

anger. And it has been demonstrated how these mechanisms and emotions can

contribute to making us defensive, thus making connection and cooperative

dynamics quite unlikely (cf. J. Tamm, https://youtu.be/vjSTNv4gyMM).

Such biases are a powerful source of the ‘games’ we may play with our superior –

whether we are aware of them or not. Karpman’s Drama Triangle helps understand

the various mechanisms at play (cf. http://fr.slideshare.net/manumjoy/drama-

triangle-34210538). Do I feel victimized by a superior who I feel systematically turns

my suggestions down, who uses their power in a non-cooperative way or who by-

passes me and relates directly with my team? And do I try to circumvent this state of

facts by being harsh with those team members who may respond to the superior’s

direct solicitations? The figure below displays the basic relations within the Drama

Triangle as well as options to turn that triangle into a ‘virtuous’ one.

FIROTheory

Allpeoplewanttofeel:

Significant Competent Likable

Tosomeextentallpeopleareafraidofbeing:

Ignored Humiliated Rejected

Thesefeelingsandfearsaffectthewaypeoplebehavere.:

Inclusion Control Openness

Key partnership behaviours

So what are those key behaviours which I can fuel our ‘partnership system’ with?

Consciously and explicitly embracing a positive dynamics ‘no matter what’ –

having the courage of confronting the situations which could result in

misunderstandings, mutual blame, uselessly waiting for the other party to

make the first move, keeping silent and brooding over frustrations

Displaying a genuine positive interest in the superior’s point of view and needs

(possibly in spite of disagreements) as an early signal of my partnering

intention, fueled by significant exploring of where they come from. In this

respect, Marcial Losada research provides useful material on the conditions for

the high performance of any team (cf. Breaking the Code on High Performing

Teams, March 12, 2015 By Phil Sandahl, MCC., @

http://teamcoachinginternational.com/breaking-the-code-on-high-

performing-teams/ )

Positioning myself as a reliable partner, with a high degree of awareness about

the realities of our system, a confident sense of my specific added-value as

well as clear alignment with the organization, my superior and myself

Displaying a balanced ability to express myself with Directness and Diplomacy

as a way of keeping focused on efficiency (we should waste no undue time

and energy when interacting together AND we should make a point of

jeopardizing the relation by disrespectful or harsh words).

Practical tips for managing situations effectively

1) Discussing a particular issue

No matter whether the conversation was started by myself or my superior, and

no matter what my own belief or preferred course of action are, I need to

contribute to ensuring that:

we share a common understanding of why the issue requires processing,

what the high-level stakes are and what the stakeholder network looks like

we agree the relevant set of criteria for later decision-making

we consider a range of robust options (mutually challenging routine, or

cheap and easy solutions), honestly setting to light the possible

shortcomings they can have or constraints they may create

we define precisely the respective levels and scopes for our specific

interventions (Who informs whom, when and how? Who takes in charge

this or that part of the action plan? Etc.)

It is of utmost importance that enough time is invested in clarifying the initial

understanding of what the issue is exactly and of why and for whom it is an

issue, going beyond assumptions or partial experience of the situation as it is.

2) Getting my superior’s buy-in

As part of my responsibilities as a manager, I am expected to come up with

suggestions or recommendations for optimizing a process or specific team’s

competences, for adjusting objectives or for improving the team organisation,

for instance. Additionally, I may have to place a request with my superior.

How successful I am in these circumstances will most of the time depend on

my ability to:

get their initial ok about the underlying expected outcomes (‘Given the

recent shift in the DG’s strategy, it has occurred to me that our team

needs to be even more reactive when Unit X or Y place a request with us.

Have I got that right?’). Indeed, the suggestion or recommendation

should appear as the surest way to ensure the outcome (‘In that case, I

have invited the team to reflect upon … and this is the ideas we could

come up with.’)

be open and honest about what solution(s) has/ve been considered,

what will be required to make it/them successful and what are the

possible risks involved

share what tentative action plan has already been considered

explore whether the superior has reasons for arbitrating in one direction

rather than another and whether they have any reservation about any

element of the proposed action plan(s)

clearly set to light what support might be required from the superior

and whether this is manageable or not

How clear, brief and to the point I am will influence how successful I am in my

attempts. Most superiors will equate information overload, lack of focus and

confusion with the ‘problem at hand’ and/or danger.

And how much I can show that I have thought the matter through without

giving my superior the feeling that I want to twist their arm or corner them will

definitely play in my favour.

3) Seeking and providing feedback

Because the hierarchical relation generally develops over some time, there is

need for constant adjustments.

On-going feedback is a key instrument for that purpose.

But true partnership means that feedback should be given AND sought. In

addition, it should also be taken appropriately (cf. above, Defensiveness).

I should make it a habit of asking myself the following questions when

contemplating asking for or giving feedback:

what is the exact purpose of that piece of feedback and what will the

benefits be (for the two partners, and possibly beyond)?

what are the tangible changes that piece of feedback should contribute

to?

what should the feedback bear upon exactly, what is the specific scope

(and what it should NOT be about)?

what is the most appropriate setting for that conversation (time, place,

environment)?

how should the key messages be phrased and what body language

should support them positively?

how should the various pieces of information be structured?

how should agreement and ownership manifest themselves?

what commitments should be made and followed-up?

In addition effective feedback as part of a partnership:

aims at improvement or optimisation

is non-judgmental

is based on tangible facts, events, behaviours, which the parties have a

direct experience of

involves no blame or guilt-generating statements (cf. the Drama

Triangle)

4) Saying ‘No’

As opposed to the previous situations, saying ‘No’ is probably the most

confrontational one for many managers.

It may particularly be so because it is the one that may remind us of how we

felt and acted as children when having to challenge authority. How did we

react if and when we heard the ‘Hurry up’, ‘Make effort’, ‘Be strong’ or ‘Be nice’

instructions? How did we manage to get across to others that we either did

not see the point in doing X or in doing it in such way, or that we thought

there were more important things we should attend to? And how much energy

and time may it have taken us to be able to try and make alternative points

without resorting to sheer refusal?

And, again, partnering does not mean that every request, every suggestion or

every instruction should be abided by.

However, in order for me to both offer a legitimate ‘No’ AND maintain a

positive and constructive relation with my superior, I need to ground that ‘No’

in fully acceptable reasons while expressing it in a way that supports a positive

relationship.

But how may I feel myself if a team member was answering me with a ‘No’? I

would probably want it to be:

preceded by a clear and accurate rephrasing of my initial request – I

want to make sure that if I get a ’No’ it relates to my real request

supported by the expression of a genuine desire to help and not create

problems

accounted for by legitimate alternative priorities (which I may myself

have set) or constraints

backed by possible ways out (partial ‘Yes’, someone else taking up the

request, etc.)

expressed in a way which would not make me feel looked down, bullied,

or left with no choice – the two of us are not two kids on a playground.